A packet of sanitary pads is not a discretionary purchase. For people who menstruate and rely on disposable pads, it is a recurring expense tied to a basic biological need. They cannot choose whether menstruation occurs, although they may have some choice over which products they use. Yet Indonesia treats sanitary pads as taxable goods, adding an effective 11% value-added tax to a product that many people need regularly to maintain their hygiene and manage their health.
The question is not simply whether the tax complies with existing regulations. It is why the government continues to impose it without providing a convincing public justification for treating menstrual products as ordinary taxable consumption. A tax can be legally valid and still deserve political and economic scrutiny. In this case, the government’s explanation of how the tax works does not answer the more important question of whether it should apply to sanitary pads at all.
The issue returned to public discussion in late October after questions emerged about why sanitary pads were not exempt from VAT. The Directorate General of Taxes confirmed that the products are taxable. In a report published on 29 October, Kompas.com quoted Inge Diana Rismawanti, the Directorate General of Taxes’ director of public education, services and public relations, explaining that sanitary pads are subject to an effective VAT burden of 11%.
The calculation follows Indonesia’s current VAT framework. The statutory rate is 12%, but the government applies a tax base equal to 11/12 of the selling price to nonluxury taxable goods. Applying the 12% rate to that base produces an effective burden of 11%. The arrangement is set out in Finance Ministry Regulation No. 131 of 2024, which took effect on 1 January 2025.
The regulation does not single out sanitary pads. They fall under the general VAT system for taxable goods and do not receive an exemption under the current rules. Inge told Kompas.com that no formal study proposing an exemption for sanitary pads had been submitted to the government. She said any change would require consideration of the products’ characteristics, existing regulations and their social and fiscal implications.
This is an explanation of the administrative position, not a defense of the policy. The absence of a formal proposal does not relieve the government of responsibility for examining the consequences of its own tax rules. The state does not have to wait for citizens, advocacy groups or lawmakers to identify every policy problem before it considers whether an existing arrangement remains appropriate.
The government has also emphasized that VAT on sanitary pads is not a tax specifically imposed on women or menstruation. Technically, that is correct. The tax forms part of the general consumption tax system and applies to the sale of taxable goods. But the distinction does not resolve the issue. A tax does not need to name a particular group to impose a disproportionate burden on people whose biological needs make a product difficult to avoid.
The same percentage can have very different consequences depending on a household’s income. For a household with sufficient disposable income, the additional cost may be manageable. For someone living on a tight budget, the expense competes with spending on food, transport, housing and other necessities. The tax rate is uniform; the capacity to absorb it is not.
The recurring nature of the purchase makes that difference important. People who rely on disposable pads must buy them repeatedly. When household finances are strained, they may have to reduce spending elsewhere, purchase fewer products or use alternatives that do not suit their needs. The extent of these effects will vary, and the available information does not establish how many people have changed their purchasing habits because of the tax. But the possibility is precisely why the government should assess the consequences instead of treating the issue as a routine matter of tax classification.
Not everyone who menstruates uses disposable pads, and not everyone who menstruates is a woman. Menstrual needs differ according to health, age, personal circumstances and access to alternatives. But for those who depend on sanitary pads, access to an adequate supply is part of maintaining hygiene and managing everyday life. The fact that consumers may have different product choices does not make the underlying need optional.
The National Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan) challenged the policy in a statement issued on 30 October. The commission described menstrual products as essential needs and argued that their tax treatment should be reconsidered in light of gender equality and human rights. It also criticized the burden placed on people who cannot simply opt out of menstruation or the products required to manage it.
The commission’s concern extends beyond the price of sanitary pads. Period poverty includes limited access to menstrual products, adequate sanitation, clean water and reliable information about menstrual health. The burden can be especially difficult for low-income women, informal workers, women with disabilities and people living in island communities. In areas where products are difficult to obtain, distribution costs and limited retail access can add to their price. A tax on an essential product may compound barriers that already exist.
Menstrual products are also needed in circumstances beyond monthly menstruation, including after childbirth, during bleeding and following miscarriage. These situations involve different health needs, but they reinforce the point that such products are not simply consumer preferences. Their availability is connected to personal hygiene, reproductive health and the ability to manage everyday life with dignity.
The term period tax is often used in public debate to describe VAT on menstrual products. It should not be confused with the pink tax, which refers to price differences between products or services marketed to women and comparable products marketed to men. Indonesia does not impose a separate VAT category on women. The criticism is directed at a general tax rule whose practical consequences are not necessarily equal.
This is where the government’s formal argument falls short. Saying that the tax applies to consumption rather than to women addresses the legal classification of the transaction, not the distribution of its burden. A formally neutral policy can still produce unequal consequences when it ignores differences in biological needs and economic circumstances. The relevant question is not whether officials intended to discriminate. It is whether they have considered the foreseeable effects and whether maintaining the tax can be justified.
The Government’s Fiscal Choice
The government has a legitimate interest in collecting revenue. VAT finances public services, and exemptions can narrow the tax base. Removing a product from taxation may also create administrative complications and does not automatically guarantee that consumers will pay less. These are legitimate considerations. But they cannot serve as a permanent answer to every demand for tax relief, particularly when the product in question is a recurring necessity.
Indonesia’s tax system already provides different treatment for certain goods and services. Government Regulation No. 49 of 2022 provides VAT exemption facilities for specified goods and services, including certain staple food commodities. The provisions cover products such as rice, corn, sago, soybeans, salt, meat, eggs, milk, fruit and vegetables, subject to the conditions set out in the regulation.
Sanitary pads are not automatically equivalent, in legal terms, to the goods covered by those provisions. Extending an exemption would require an appropriate legal basis and a decision about the scope of the facility. But the existence of exemptions demonstrates that the tax system is not simply an automatic mechanism in which every transaction must receive identical treatment. The government has made decisions about which goods deserve relief and has established rules to implement those decisions.
That makes the absence of an exemption for menstrual products a policy choice that deserves scrutiny. If the government recognizes that some goods should receive tax relief because of their importance to household welfare, it should explain why menstrual products do not receive comparable consideration. What criteria does it use to distinguish essential goods from taxable consumer products? Does it assess the consequences for low-income households? Does it consider the relationship between affordability and public health? And why has the government not published an assessment addressing these questions?
The burden of justification should not fall entirely on those asking for relief. People who menstruate should not have to prove that their recurring biological needs deserve attention before the government examines the effects of its own tax policy. Nor should the issue be reduced to whether an exemption has been formally proposed. The Finance Ministry and the Directorate General of Taxes have the institutional responsibility and the capacity to evaluate the rules they administer.
Komnas Perempuan has called on the government, particularly the Finance Ministry, to reconsider VAT on menstrual products. Its statement on 30 October proposed considering either an exemption from VAT or a government-borne VAT facility. These proposals deserve a substantive response. Repeating that sanitary pads are taxable under existing rules does not address the commission’s argument about the unequal consequences of that treatment.
The government should also be honest about what tax relief can and cannot achieve. Removing VAT does not automatically guarantee that retail prices will fall by the same amount. The result depends on the design of the facility, the treatment of tax paid earlier in the supply chain, business practices and whether manufacturers and retailers pass the benefit on to consumers. An exemption that primarily benefits businesses without improving affordability would fall short of its purpose.
For that reason, any change should be accompanied by a clear assessment of its effects on the supply chain and retail prices. The government should examine whether an exemption or government-borne VAT facility would be more effective, how much revenue each option would cost and how the benefits could reach consumers. Public procurement and distribution through health and education services could also help people who face the greatest barriers to obtaining menstrual products. These measures would not replace the need to reconsider the tax itself, but they could address gaps that a tax exemption alone might leave unresolved.
The issue also has a human rights dimension. Indonesia ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women through Law No. 7 of 1984. The convention provides a framework for examining whether public policies account for women’s circumstances and needs. It does not, by itself, establish that VAT on sanitary pads violates international law. Its relevance is that the government should consider whether formally uniform policies produce unequal effects and whether reasonable measures could address them.
Komnas Perempuan has also raised the issue in a constitutional proceeding. The commission submitted a written amicus curiae in Case No. 11/PUU-XXIII/2025 at the Constitutional Court. The case concerned a broader challenge to provisions of the 2021 Law on the Harmonization of Tax Regulations; it was not a lawsuit specifically seeking to remove VAT from sanitary pads. On 14 August 2025, the court rejected the petition in its entirety, according to its official case summary. The commission’s submission forms part of the public debate, but it should not be mistaken for a court ruling on the tax treatment of menstrual products.
The government has yet to offer a public assessment that addresses the central issue: what does the state gain from maintaining the tax, who bears its cost and why is that arrangement preferable to providing relief? The Directorate General of Taxes has explained the applicable rules and said that no formal study proposing an exemption had been submitted. That is not the same as publishing an assessment of the tax’s distributional effects or explaining why the government considers the current treatment appropriate.
At a minimum, the Finance Ministry should disclose the estimated revenue generated by VAT on menstrual products and the likely fiscal cost of removing or reducing the burden. It should examine how the tax affects households at different income levels, whether access is more difficult in areas where products are expensive or scarce, and how alternative tax arrangements might affect retail prices. Without this information, the public is being asked to accept the government’s fiscal position without being shown the evidence behind it.
The state cannot treat the tax classification of sanitary pads as the end of the debate. Regulations explain how the government collects revenue. They do not settle whether the revenue is worth the burden imposed on consumers or whether a different policy would better serve the public interest. A policy can be legally valid and still be poorly justified.
Sanitary pads are not luxury goods. For people who rely on them, they are part of the recurring cost of managing menstruation safely and with dignity. The government may argue that maintaining the tax protects revenue or preserves consistency within the VAT system. If so, it should publish the evidence supporting that position and explain why the alternatives are less appropriate. Fiscal policy requires more than administrative convenience; it requires public justification.
A fair tax system must do more than apply the same percentage to every transaction. It must also consider how its rules operate in unequal circumstances. The government should not ask people to accept an effective 11% VAT on sanitary pads merely because the products fall within the existing category of taxable goods. It should demonstrate why that treatment is necessary, proportionate and preferable to available alternatives. If it cannot make that case, it should reconsider the policy.
The cost of menstrual hygiene should not be treated as a routine source of tax revenue without examining the human needs it serves. Tax fairness begins when the government recognizes that equal rates do not always produce equal burdens.
Leave a Reply